Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?

[Gentlegamer]

"can I roll to think of this?"

Can we coin a new phrase?

"Mother, may I roll to think of this?"

 

[Gentlegamer]

And, we collectively try to catch players who metagame, which would include breaking the mold of our perception of ability scores.

You realize comparing the player's portrayal against the character sheet *is* metagaming, right?

 

[JamesonCourage]

How is this not peer pressure? You collectively try to catch players who metagame. You're all peers aren't you?

Yeah, but it's not peer pressure in the colloquial sense. That is, we aren't trying to force someone to play in a way that they don't wish to. As I've mentioned the social contract, it's something mutually agreed upon. We all try to catch one another as aid, not to force someone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

That'd be like saying that if I accidentally cheat when I'm playing basketball and they call me on it, they're trying to use peer pressure. Well, that's probably mislabeling it from a colloquial standpoint, and perhaps from a technical definition (sense there's no "pressure"). It's trying to help the other guy stay in line with a rule that he's forgotten to follow.

I hope that illuminates my group a little more. As always, play what you like

Can we coin a new phrase?

"Mother, may I roll to think of this?"

So, if I tell someone I'm going to fly at level 1, even though I have no ability to fly, that'd be fine? No? So, I have to ask, "mother, may I walk to the store now?" Or, if I ask if I know about something, and the GM says "roll a Knowledge check," that means whenever I want to know anything, I have to ask, "Mother-May-I?"

See, if the group agrees upon this play style, labeling it as Mother-May-I is pretty misleading. It's definitely condescending. It's also hyperbole.

You realize comparing the player's portrayal against the character sheet *is* metagaming, right?

Again, not in the colloquial sense. Nobody uses the word that way. If I say, "I'm going to fly!" at level one, and the GM says, "you can't, you don't have anything that mechanically lets you do that," I can't say back "hey! That's metagaming!" and expect people to take me seriously.

Why? Because the term isn't used that way within common language (at least from my experience). Following the game rules is metagaming. People don't consider it such, of course. I can (and will) pretty easily dismiss your comment on such grounds. You can comment on it again, if you'd like, but I likely won't reply, as there's no point in getting into that argument. As always, play what you like

 

[The Shaman]

That's a bit trickier isn't it? You're talking about a character with brain damage - an idiot savant.

No, I said savant, as in a learned person or scholar, not idiot savant, which is a clinical psychological condition.

And, this way lies a LOT of powergaming. I can simply dumpstat and then ignore any penalties because I'm a "savant".

Except, of course, as I already noted, you really can't. Your attributes have very specific in-game effects that cannot be ignored.

See, the problem that I'm seeing here is that you're rejecting the definitions that are given for the stats. Which is fine for your game. Playstyles and all that. But, I'm thinking that the system is not loving you here. In a system which defines mental stats, they usually broadly define what those stats govern.

In terms of actual rules, they very specifically define what those stats govern - in the case of Intelligence in d20, frex, that's the number of languages your character knows at the start of the game, the number of skills points your character gains at each level (notably, that's never less than one), and a bonus or penalty to some skill checks. It also serves as a minimum score for some feats, and it affects wizards' spellcasting abilities.

Problem solving is typically in D&D related to Int or perhaps Wis.

Problem solving is figuring out the answer to the riddle, What goes through the door but never goes in or out? or that the doors with the green tile floor in front of them mark the shortest route through the maze, not the one's with the white or red tiles.

Neither my character's INT nor WIS modifiers can do that. Nor should they.

Tactical acumen is also directly linked to Int in D20 (Combat Expertise feat tree gives a pretty good example here - Int 13 required). If you want to do more than just bash away at baddies, you need to have a pretty high Int in D20 D&D. All of the improved maneuver feats are linked to Combat Expertise.

Those are fighting abilities, not tactics. Tactics is putting two rows of crossbowmen alternating fire behind a row of pikeman set to receive a charge, or concentrating one's artillery (cannon, fireball, plasma gun man portable) fire to create a weak spot in your enemy's line.

There is no skill or feat for this. Nor should there be.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if you're arguing that Thog shouldn't be able to solve puzzles and use clever tactics because that doesn't fit some notion of what his attribute scores are supposed to mean in terms of roleplaying, then you've completely misunderstood the argument I've been making.

 

[Voadam]

Let's take one last stab at this beastie.

You're starting a new campaign. We'll stick with 3.5 D&D, just because it's easy.

Player comes to you with his new character. He's all excited about his concept - a brilliant guy who solves problems by talking rather than combat. He's really into Doctor Who and wants to draw his inspiration from that.

You look down at his character sheet and see: Str, Dex, Con, all 18, Int: 8, Wis: 8, Cha 6, and no social skills whatsoever.

Do you accept this character without comment or do you raise questions?

I'm mostly fine with that, I have some questions but I they are of a different sort.

First lets stipulate its a 42 point buy epic stats in a normal rules 3.5 campaign.

"So, +4 on jump, climb, and swim checks; +4 dex bonus to AC, reflex, and initiative; and +4 fortitude and bonus hp/level with -1 skill point/level and disable device checks; -1 will save, and listen and spot checks; -1 on UMD checks, and no ability to cast spells or do magic stuff. Are you going with the rogue class so you have tons of skills and the -1/level is not that big a deal and you have skills as an out of combat mechanical ability or are you thinking something else and just want to roleplay a bunch? Remember, if you go figthter you will have only one skill point a level, no magic, and your concept is to try to talk your way out of combat which is pretty much all that 3e fighters are set up to do mechanically. Also something to consider is that UMD is a charisma based skill and a wand of knock spells could work as a single function sonic screwdriver in D&D."

Rogues and fighters have a tough time mechanically in 3.5, I'm fine with one who is stat-based physically focused but takes The Doctor as his general roleplay inspiration.

I don't expect him to be an overpowered and unbalanced character in a 3.5 game.

 

[Hussar]

The Shaman, how can your character be a savant with only one skill rank per level? I guess he could be REALLY good at one and only one thing, but, I would think that the definition of "learned savant" would be a bit broader than that.

As far as the rest goes, well, I LOATHE with the power of a thousand suns word puzzles in RPG's because they are 100% meta-game and have nothing to do with what's actually going on in the game. "What goes through a door and never goes in or out"? I have no idea, nor do I care in the slightest.

Yet, my 18 Int character certainly should be able to solve that rather easily. So, can I roll an Int check to solve your riddle or not? OTOH, my 8 Int character likely can't solve riddles regularly. So, do we ignore Int checks if I, the player, can resolve your riddles?

I understand the argument you're making. You're ejecting any notion that what is actually on a player's character sheet should in any way govern how that character is portrayed. Unless, of course, it falls under one of your pet mechanics (Secrets from Flashing Blades for example) in which case, the player is expected to portray that mechanic at the table.

Me, I take a much broader view and believe that EVERYTHING that is on your character sheet matters and should be taken into consideration when portraying the character. If your character has weak mental stats, I expect players to actually play characters that are weak mentally in exactly the same way that a character that is physically weak should be played that way as well.

As to Bill91's point about enforcement? It's not. It can't be. Other than choosing to play with like minded individuals who also believe that character sheets and stats should matter. If you want to ignore your character sheet, more power to you. But, at my table and the tables I choose to play at, this is not true. Your character sheet should always matter.

 

[Gentlegamer]

As far as the rest goes, well, I LOATHE with the power of a thousand suns word puzzles in RPG's because they are 100% meta-game and have nothing to do with what's actually going on in the game.

Your player awareness of character sheets (particularly the character sheets of other players) *is* meta-game. Stop breaking immersion and pretend you don't know about character sheets.

Do you see the difficulty in 'policing' 'meta-game' knowledge?

"What goes through a door and never goes in or out"? I have no idea, nor do I care in the slightest.

Yet, my 18 Int character certainly should be able to solve that rather easily. So, can I roll an Int check to solve your riddle or not? OTOH, my 8 Int character likely can't solve riddles regularly. So, do we ignore Int checks if I, the player, can resolve your riddles?

Intelligence score shouldn't be used as a "saving throw vs. puzzle/riddle." Puzzles and riddles are there as part of the challenge to the player, and are a perfectly appropriate thing in the game.

You might also say, "my 18 Int character would certainly know the optimum spell to cast in this situation, so can I roll an Int check for the DM to tell me which spell to cast?" Those questions are essentially the same.

The best riddles are those that build upon the campaign's 'lore-background' or other in-game clues and give players and their characters in-game knowledge to use to solve them, preserving 'immersion.' But those can be pretty hard to devise. As substitute, 'real world' riddles can be used, with the assumption being they are a 'translation' from the campaign's lore and background into the language and cultural reference of the players. This is similar to the assumption that when players speak in first person in their real world language, their characters are actually speaking in the fantasy language appropriate to their culture/race/education, etc.

As to Bill91's point about enforcement? It's not. It can't be.

Then why can't you see that it isn't intrinsic to the game-form? That is the epiphany I arrived at over time, and is why I adopted the view I now hold (I used to have a view similar to yours).

Other than choosing to play with like minded individuals who also believe that character sheets and stats should matter. If you want to ignore your character sheet, more power to you. But, at my table and the tables I choose to play at, this is not true. Your character sheet should always matter.

You keep stating character sheets and stats should matter, and also talk about how important immersion is. From these, I interpret what you are really saying is that you value play-acting and role-assumption very highly, and see them as synonyms for 'role-playing.' I believe this is where the disconnect is coming from in the two basic views.

Role-playing (in respect to the RPG game-form), at its most basic, is the participants acting and reacting to the imaginary environment and characters through the interaction of the players and the game master. When playing a role-playing game, the entire activity in-game *is* role-playing, including combat (which is commonly and erroneously stated as something separate from the role-playing part of the game, in my opinion).

Participants may add additional layers to this basic structure, such as play-acting (hamming it up) and role-assumption (behaving as the character would, not using player knowledge). This is perfectly fine as part of how the game-form is organic and takes on the character of the participants based on their behavior and preferences. But it (play-acting and role-assumption) is not intrinsic (that is, necessary) to the game-form. It's something extra that can be added, just like highly tactical/realistic combat resolution mechanics isn't necessary, but can be added based on the preferences of the participants.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Your player awareness of character sheets (particularly the character sheets of other players) *is* meta-game. Stop breaking immersion and pretend you don't know about character sheets.

Do you see the difficulty in 'policing' 'meta-game' knowledge?

I think the thing here is that policing this type of metagaming helps keep immersion intact.

That is, if I have a player whose PC has a 6 Int and 6 Wis, but he keeps offering wise advice and giving the best ideas for long term plans the party has, it will hurt our immersion, because it breaks our suspension of disbelief.

By referencing his character sheet to help reign in that type of in-game contribution, we retain a level of immersion that we would not without that use of metagame information.

And, again, this use of the word "metagame" doesn't fit the colloquial use of the word (from my experience). However, regardless of that fact, using it in the sense I've described helps retain immersion for my group (and perhaps Hussar's), because it's much easier for us to fathom an idiot being an idiot. Because, to me (and perhaps Hussar), a person with a Int of 6 and a Wis of 6 is an idiot. They might have shining moments, but that's usually because simplicity can really put things into perspective sometimes.

Anyways, just my thoughts. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Your player awareness of character sheets (particularly the character sheets of other players) *is* meta-game. Stop breaking immersion and pretend you don't know about character sheets.

Do you see the difficulty in 'policing' 'meta-game' knowledge?

Well, the fact that the paper is right there, in front of me, makes it somewhat difficult to ignore. Plus, the fact that I am not policing anything but myself and expect everyone else to do the same thing means that, to the extent possible, I am ignoring other people's character sheet.

But, when you are portraying a character that is different from the character you created, that breaks immersion for everyone at the table. It's inconsistent for one. If your character is described as X, but constantly fails at X, then it is not X.

Intelligence score shouldn't be used as a "saving throw vs. puzzle/riddle." Puzzles and riddles are there as part of the challenge to the player, and are a perfectly appropriate thing in the game.

"Challenge to the player" Ayup, right there, immersion breaking, leaping over the fourth wall. Why in heck would my barbarian, who's grown up on the steppes, living in yurts and tents all his life, have any idea how to solve a riddle about doors?

So, if I the player solve that riddle, I'm now inconsistent to that character. There is no reasonable way for that character to know the answer that particular riddle. And, yes, I realize you could come up with some off the cuff justification, but, it would be breaking character for me. It doesn't matter if it doesn't bother you. It bothers other people at the table, namely me, and thus, it's behavior that makes for poor play.

And, no, puzzles and riddles are not "perfectly appropriate" for the game. They might be for your games, fine. But, not for mine thanks. They're entirely meta-game, frustration building and about as much fun as having your scrotum shaved.

You might also say, "my 18 Int character would certainly know the optimum spell to cast in this situation, so can I roll an Int check for the DM to tell me which spell to cast?" Those questions are essentially the same.

Funnily enough though, there are a number of spells which will do EXACTLY that. All the "DM questioning" type spells. Plus, I can make an Arcana check to know what the best approach might be to a given situation.

But, you're still missing the point. It isn't that I know the optimum spell to cast. It's that in portraying my Int 18 wizard, I'm going to play to the best of my ability and choose spells that I believe will be the most optimum. OTOH, my 6 Wis barbarian probably won't be the one advocating checking for traps and setting complicated ambushes.

The best riddles are those that build upon the campaign's 'lore-background' or other in-game clues and give players and their characters in-game knowledge to use to solve them, preserving 'immersion.' But those can be pretty hard to devise. As substitute, 'real world' riddles can be used, with the assumption being they are a 'translation' from the campaign's lore and background into the language and cultural reference of the players. This is similar to the assumption that when players speak in first person in their real world language, their characters are actually speaking in the fantasy language appropriate to their culture/race/education, etc.

Or, the better answer, leave riddles in the same drawer as labyrinths - that drawer marked, "REALLY DON'T DO THIS".

Then why can't you see that it isn't intrinsic to the game-form? That is the epiphany I arrived at over time, and is why I adopted the view I now hold (I used to have a view similar to yours).
You keep stating character sheets and stats should matter, and also talk about how important immersion is. From these, I interpret what you are really saying is that you value play-acting and role-assumption very highly, and see them as synonyms for 'role-playing.' I believe this is where the disconnect is coming from in the two basic views.

The disconnect is entirely on your end. Role assumption is intrinsic to any mature form of role play.

Role-playing (in respect to the RPG game-form), at its most basic, is the participants acting and reacting to the imaginary environment and characters through the interaction of the players and the game master.

Yup. Totally agree. At it's most basic level, that's role playing. But, I don't want to play at the most basic level and I would never presume that anyone with any modicum of experience playing would remain at this level.

When playing a role-playing game, the entire activity in-game *is* role-playing, including combat (which is commonly and erroneously stated as something separate from the role-playing part of the game, in my opinion).

Participants may add additional layers to this basic structure, such as play-acting (hamming it up) and role-assumption (behaving as the character would, not using player knowledge). This is perfectly fine as part of how the game-form is organic and takes on the character of the participants based on their behavior and preferences. But it (play-acting and role-assumption) is not intrinsic (that is, necessary) to the game-form. It's something extra that can be added, just like highly tactical/realistic combat resolution mechanics isn't necessary, but can be added based on the preferences of the participants.

I would argue that role-assumption is the most primary drive behind any role playing game. While you can certainly play an RPG without role assumption, that level of play is generally the most immature and least satisfying. It's how most people play computer RPG's. There's little to no role assumption in CRPG's by and large (although there are exceptions).

What differentiates a tabletop RPG from a CRPG is role assumption. Acting, not based on what you the player think is the best course, but from a sense of actively trying to portray a character within an imaginary situation.

I would strongly argue against any definition of role playing that was strictly limited to such basic play as what you're advocating here. That's how people play when they first start into the hobby. It usually doesn't take too long before players progress beyond this. And most RPG's recognize this. The FATE system, for example, is predicated on the idea that you are going to engage in role-assumption. Without it, the whole game falls apart.

Would you actually characterize play with no role assumption as good?

 

[billd91]

W
"Challenge to the player" Ayup, right there, immersion breaking, leaping over the fourth wall. Why in heck would my barbarian, who's grown up on the steppes, living in yurts and tents all his life, have any idea how to solve a riddle about doors?

So, if I the player solve that riddle, I'm now inconsistent to that character. There is no reasonable way for that character to know the answer that particular riddle. And, yes, I realize you could come up with some off the cuff justification, but, it would be breaking character for me. It doesn't matter if it doesn't bother you. It bothers other people at the table, namely me, and thus, it's behavior that makes for poor play.

Here's the rub. EVERYTHING about RPGs actually challenges the player to some degree. It doesn't matter whether it's a riddle or a tactical situation or a negotiation encounter. And this becomes pretty obvious when you watch less skilled players compared to players who have better game skills.

Now, since this seems important to you, everything can have challenge added by figuring out how to handle the situation in character based on the character sheet. Even the Int 6 barbarian may have heard a riddle before. They were well known among not-reputed-to-be-intellectual cultures like the Saxons. Or a player who figures it out but feels that the wizard player is expected to shine in that moment because he has an 18 on his sheet could drop a hint.

Or, the better answer, leave riddles in the same drawer as labyrinths - that drawer marked, "REALLY DON'T DO THIS".

No, I think there are too many examples in legends, literature, and reality to ditch them. They're iconic. I like iconic in my D&D.

Would you actually characterize play with no role assumption as good?

If that's the style of play you prefer, absolutely. It's not my style of play and I think there are better for my tastes, but for the beer and pretzels, kick in the door, skirmishy game players - it's just fine. I try not to buy into the idea that there's an objective qualitative hierarchy in play styles for that way badwrongfun madness lies.